iAmCaffeine wrote:We'd be ranked #35 then. Only problem I see with this ranking, is that a higher ranked clan would rarely be interested in accepting a challenge from a lower ranked clan. Of course that's going to be the case with any ranking system, but it applies here even more so.

I think this issue was fixed in this iteration by simply having a pure skip. So if the 30th ranked clan beats the 2nd ranked clan, the 30th ranked clan goes to 2nd and the 2nd ranked clan only falls to 3rd.

Arama86n wrote:It's interesting, for me different perspectives always are.If we're going to make any ranking official though, F400, not this.

It is not my intent to make this an official ranking system. This is more for fun. I agree that Ice's F400 is the more accurate ranking system. However, it does take quite a few wars to get on that system. This one should react a bit quicker. Should be fun the next time I update when there is a dialogue about who skipped who and when.

iAmCaffeine wrote:We'd be ranked #35 then. Only problem I see with this ranking, is that a higher ranked clan would rarely be interested in accepting a challenge from a lower ranked clan. Of course that's going to be the case with any ranking system, but it applies here even more so.

I think this issue was fixed in this iteration by simply having a pure skip. So if the 30th ranked clan beats the 2nd ranked clan, the 30th ranked clan goes to 2nd and the 2nd ranked clan only falls to 3rd.

agentcom wrote:Why did you decide to have the winning clan (if lower ranked) move up, rather than have the losing clan (if higher ranked) move down? It would be interesting to see what the differences would be in those two systems. In yours, you can vault to the front, but you fall slowly. In the other, you could fall very quickly, but you'd have to slowly eek your way to the top.

That would be very interesting; though the top clans would lose motivation to play anyone lower ranked. In this method, they can only lose drop one place if they lose.

Maybe that would be the case if this ranking was going to be used for anything. But it's not. We have better ranking methods out there. As cheme pointed out, this is just for fun. So, I'm thinking that in the same spirit (just for fun), it would be interesting to see what the difference is in the opposite method.

Also, I've said this before, but I think it would be really cool to have a table with all the ranking systems in it. Probably sorted by the F400 because that seems to enjoy the most respect, but also the F41, the coach's poll, cheme's ladder, and ... the other one that I'm forgetting right now that scores clans as if they were CC players. Oh and add to that the most recent place in CCup and the other big tourneys.

So, you'd have each clan and at least half a dozen columns. I think that would be nifty

agentcom wrote:Also, I've said this before, but I think it would be really cool to have a table with all the ranking systems in it. Probably sorted by the F400 because that seems to enjoy the most respect, but also the F41, the coach's poll, cheme's ladder, and ... the other one that I'm forgetting right now that scores clans as if they were CC players. Oh and add to that the most recent place in CCup and the other big tourneys.

So, you'd have each clan and at least half a dozen columns. I think that would be nifty

Hopefully when we get our new CDs, this is something we can get going.

Yeah or like the USA Today, AP, BCS, etc. polls/systems for college football. That's kind of my point. Lots of times you see those presented side-by-side. Glad to hear that cheme thinks this is one of the new CD responsibilities

Cheme Is there the possibility / potential to put approximate date to each of the spoilers listed (and ones in the future)? Sometimes I imagine 50 war might take awhile while others might update rather quickly. Just to give a little better comparison as to when each update kicked in? Just a thought still enjoying looking thru the history on this oneIcePack

BoganGod wrote:Like this. So after we beat TOFU I will like it even more.....

When will that be then mate?

Interesting format you've adopted cheme, deviating from the usual golf/squash/etc practice of the lower-ranked clan moving half the distance towards the higher-ranked in the event of a victory (e.g. If #32 beat #4 they would move up to #18 yet #4 stays where it is). They both have their merits - yours being more dynamic, whereas the traditional method is more-steeped in reality (in that the #32 ranked clan really isn't better than all those ranked from #4 thru #31 and simply got lucky on one occasion). I think that's why the traditional system is adopted more often, as it rules out the anomalies of freaky victories. Yours is perhaps more fun and appealing though.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Interesting format you've adopted cheme, deviating from the usual golf/squash/etc practice of the lower-ranked clan moving half the distance towards the higher-ranked in the event of a victory (e.g. If #32 beat #4 they would move up to #18 yet #4 stays where it is). They both have their merits - yours being more dynamic, whereas the traditional method is more-steeped in reality (in that the #32 ranked clan really isn't better than all those ranked from #4 thru #31 and simply got lucky on one occasion). I think that's why the traditional system is adopted more often, as it rules out the anomalies of freaky victories. Yours is perhaps more fun and appealing though.

I agree this is more dynamic. A few things:

I think it shows pretty accurately how long it has been since some of the top clans have beaten another top clan. IA being the prime example. There is no doubt they are a dominant clan, but it has been a long time since they beat anyone "better" than them (at least for ladder purposes).

Additionally, this system allowed a clan like ACE to jump quickly to where (or about where) they should be. Using the halving formula, I'm not sure they would be anywhere close to where they should be.

Finally, since it only includes clan wars (41+ games) there is less of a "luck" factor as somewhere along the way we determined that 41 games was the true measure of a clan. Right or wrong, there you go! Looking at the ladder, it definitely is not the end all be all of clan ranking systems. But I think it is a fun and interesting exercise, especially when looked at in conjunction with the other systems.

In my opinion, the biggest issue (flaw) that it has is that when a clan stumbles (either because of attrition, defection, or otherwise) the system cannot correct itself. So when 4-5 clans beat a higher ranked clan, after an event that has weakened that clan, you get some odd looking results. Then when you get an odd result and clans beat the clan that had the odd result, it creates even odder results!

Not sure I'm a big fan of this system. For example, AFOS was still quite high ranked as they hadn't played almost any war lately, and got beaten by a clan or 2 that didn't need to be top teams as AFOS's level has gone down dramatically in the past 2 years, so we got jumped over by a few teams that we have beaten recently just because they won against afos or winners of afos in this updated ranking.Basically, if an average clan infiltrates above you for winning against a higher ranked clan, it can bring a ton of clans on top of you even if you've beaten them recently. I think this kind of ranking would make sense only if clans strategically chose their wars depending on this ranking's standings, but when you play competitions you don't get to chose who you'll be facing. So the f400 makes much more sense to give an overall picture of the current shape of different clans